Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/50
Paragraph 1- If a document with witnesses states, “I so and so borrowed a maneh from you,” whomever produces this document may collect the maneh. If, however, the document does not have witnesses but was written with the borrower’s handwriting, the borrower is believed to say he did not borrow from the document-holder but from someone else who dropped it and the document-owner simply found it because the borrower would have been believed to say he paid it back. The same applies to a court ruling that states that a person is obligated to pay his adversary and he would be required to pay the individual that produces the ruling. The same applies to a document that states that so-and-so owes money to so-and-so or to whomever produces the document and the borrower would be obligated to pay whomever produces it. This only applies if the person producing the document is making his claim via the so-and-so, unless the document explicitly stated that there is no distinction whether the person is claiming via so-and-so or not. If a receipt was written on any person with respect to this document, no person may subsequently collect with the document. If a document states that a person is obligating himself to anyone who produces this document against him, he is obligated to pay the person who produces it, even if it was known that he never owed him anything, because he obligated himself, as was explained above in Siman 40. See later 60:10.